These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Email CommentIgnore CommenterFollow Commenter

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows the percentages of GSS respondents who participated in the survey between 2012 and 2018, by partisan affiliation and age, who favor free speech absolutism (N = 5,963):

That term is a tad hyperbolic. It refers to those who say communists, atheists, homosexuals, racists, and militarists should all be allowed to speak publicly about their views. Respondents who say one or more of those groups of people should not be allowed to speak publicly about their views oppose free speech absolutism.

Those five categories do a pretty good job of touching both extreme ends of the political spectrum–communists, atheists, and homosexuals on the left; racists and militarists on the right.

While Republicans are hardly the party of free speech–that’s what third parties are for!–Democrats have increasingly become the party of censorship. The intellectual totalitarianism is especially pronounced among young leftists, though younger people of all affiliations are less tolerant of free expression than older people are.

The tendency towards younger people being more censorial than their elders is a new phenomenon. From the surveys inception in the early seventies through the turn of the millennia, an average of 46.4% of those under the age of 30 supported free speech absolutism compared to 41.2% of those aged 30 and older.

Don’t get excited about these late 20th century figures being modestly lower than those during the Great Awokening, though. It’s entirely due–and then some–to the seismic shift in views of homosexuality from then to now. You may view that shift as a moral triumph, but it doesn’t tell us much about attitudes towards free speech. Because the issue of free speech by its very nature concerns subjects that are controversial, that 90% of the population now takes no issue with homosexuals speaking publicly, compared to the 65% who felt the same way in the seventies, means that it doesn’t really qualify as controversial anymore.

One can see it right here in the comments often. It may not be that their “minds are closed”. The ignorant views on Socialism and other ideologies that are in opposition to freedom are just from a lack of experience. Many have not known a free day or moment in their lives. It’s not closed minds, but imaginations so limited that they would not know freedom if it came up and bit them in the ass.

If the multicultural system is an inevitability that we cannot defeat, I suggest we learn to live with it, and nudge it towards our direction.

If youth want authoritarianism, even a soft kind, I’m not sure we can oppose it by hearkening towards a coarse Boomer President at odds with most of the corporate world.

In a contest between Security and Freedom, perhaps some may be titled towards the latter. But in a contest of Diversity and Freedom, they almost always tilt towards the former. Libertarian solutions will not satisfy those that want a caring and kind society, but authoritarian solutions will. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the Right supply the authoritarianism than the Left.

Their framing is dumb too. Apparently we're not allowed to take issue with anything lefties say ever again or we're just complete hypocrites on PC. Apparently there's no scale or degrees to these things. Notice that the charge of hypocrisy always works just one way.

It’s entirely due–and then some–to the seismic shift in views of homosexuality from then to now.

Yes, even Silents have become much more pro-gay since the late 90’s. You really gain a newfound respect for the 1990’s Religious Right, who were often derided as hysterical goofs because they warned that a “homosexual agenda” was afoot and gaining speed. Per generations, the shift towards liberalism on drugs and homosexuality began with Boomers in the 1970’s (per the GSS), then all the generations born after 1925 got “squished” into alignment in the late 90’s. In defense of Gen X, they were strongly against pot legalization in the late 80’s and very early 90’s; other generations felt similarly at this time, but I am impressed that even the youngest adults of that period knew better than to promote drugs.

Now I understand that attacks on Free Speech dramatically increased in the 2010’s era of Millennial and Gen Z youth. Nevertheless, these generations bear zero responsibility for obvious signs of cultural decadence that can be traced to the youth culture of the late 60’s and 70’s, and the pre-Millennial generations have failed big time in not just their policing of the culture, but also at being able to craft sound economic, political, and foreign policies.

There’s no love lost at this point between me and this “coarse Boomer President”. (Feel free to add “worthless” next time.)

Libertarian solutions will not satisfy those that want a caring and kind society, but authoritarian solutions will.

No solutions come out of government. Caring and kindness must come from the people themselves, and there’s not much room for it when the people are under oppression.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the Right supply the authoritarianism than the Left.

If I knew it’d be temporary, to set things right, sure. It never seems to go smoothly like that though…

Anyway, just like the Boomers should not have been taken too seriously when they were young, the political views young people of today should not be taken seriously. By definition, they don’t know squat.

Even 66.9% strikes as way too low for a group whose only chance to be noticed, much less prevail in any of the discussion requires free-speech absolutism.

To Achmed’s earlier point, the only chance millenials have of learning is to be exposed to free speech and processing and digesting what they see, hear, or read. The problem is that they are now programmed to immediately tune out or turn off or shut down any free speech that is unapproved.

That 2nd one is not as bad as one would think, but it’s a really stupid way to make a graph! You don’t put a curve (or even segments) between points unless that represents some continuous variable. I thought it represented time for a few seconds. The shape of the curve means nothing. Crimeny, this should have been a bar chart! I would say the stupidity of the creator of that graph is scarier than the data.

That may indeed be the takeaway, especially for the Libertarian-minded.

But here’s a different take. And one that probably won’t sit well with some:

Romans 1:18–27God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

I’ve emphasized certain passages to show that it is that the pervasiveness of homosexuality in a culture which is the evidence that God is judging it – not the other way around. God is judging America (and other nations) because they have:

• Suppressed the Truth
• Do not honor him as God or give thanks to Him
• Exchanged the glory of the immortal God for idols
• Refused to acknowledge God

Which follow from the “whereas” portions,

• Therefore God gave them up
• Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie
• Because they worshiped and served created things and idols rather than their Creator
• For this reason God gave them up
• And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up

So (and contrary to the thinking of many of my fellow-Christians) it is not that America will be judged because of the lawlessness of our culture (further aided in its depravity by a rogue Supreme Court). No, the pervasiveness and acceptance of homosexuality in our culture is the judgment on America. Judgement isn’t just coming. Judgement is happening now.

Thank you for the better graphs (1st, 2nd, and 4th that is). That 4th one is very disappointing and does it not show you plainly the difference between Libertarians and Conservatives?

On the 3rd graph, as my main man would have said “There you go again …” starting the y-axis wherever the hell you want to make the data look the way you want (not you, O.R., whoever made it) Start the damn y-axis at 0, assholes! (And why not end it at 1.0 for cryin’ out loud, too, in this simple case of 0 through 1?)

Anyone who claims propaganda has no effect just needs to look at the change in attitudes to homosexuality due to the aggressive media campaign to promote it, beginning in the nineties. Joe Biden got that one right.

“Anyone who claims propaganda has no effect just needs to look at the change in attitudes to homosexuality due to the aggressive media campaign to promote it . . .”

Nothing has been as damaging in this regard as education, and the collapse pf main stream churches to the psychological theories and the blend of eastern philosophies regarding objective existence of being.

————————————————

“But here’s a different take. And one that probably won’t sit well with some:”

As long as you don’t turn scripture into some manner of unique cultural western philosophy those passages in their proper context are fine with me.

The reprobate mind is certainly not limited to the non-intellectual. In fact, more inclined to the the entellctual who can reason his or her way into anything, even that God is dead.

There was an effort to depict traditionalists as backward and psychotic bigots, that was evident as early as 1988 (when the West Coast shifted heavily to Dukakis in large part due to animus toward the cultural conservatives of the South and Midwest who took over the GOP’s public image in the late 80’s). By 1993, “homophobia” (as in traditional views of sexuality) was beginning to be something that the average person feared being accused of. And this trend would intensify as time went on, affecting all generations, Western countries, and social classes.

The thing is, contrary to what most modern conservatives would have you believe, it was actually the corporate private sector who were the biggest pushers of CultMarxism after 1980. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, cultural liberalism was something that dopey teenagers bought into. It wasn’t something pushed by much of the established culture or older generations. And this is further proven by the fact that once baby Boomers began entering leadership in the 1980’s, well, go figure, what once would’ve been considered “radical” was now mainstream practice within our institutions, including private sector ones. Cuck Reaganites generally try to attribute this to fear of lawsuits or government harassment, rather than acknowledge the truth: the corporate private sector has never fought for cultural conservatism, but rather, bends to the left, right, or center in accordance with fashion.

The “Matthew Shepard” affair was particularly ridiculous. A gay hooker/drug addict gets beaten up and killed by drug dealers, and this is put down to “homophobia” by the gullible mainstream media. Sure, there are hundreds and hundreds of murders every year (and tens of thousands of beatings) that occur for any number of reasons, but this one particular incident of violence for some reason deserved many hours and pages of media coverage.

I also seem to remember Stephen King, as early as 1986 (!), having a gay bashing murder take place in one of his books (It, if memory serves). But then again, he was “homophobic” enough to have the victim be pint-sized, and the straight aggressor was much bigger*.

*Research suggests that gays are, in fact, physically smaller on average than straights.

I don’t consider my self an absolutist on most things, and the term “free speech” like most terms has been corrupted to mean something other than intended. So the way “free speech” is defined currently is definitely not something I am an absolutist about.

“Those five categories do a pretty good job of touching both extreme ends of the political spectrum–communists, atheists, and homosexuals on the left; racists and militarists on the right.”

The categories might do a good job of touching both extreme ends of the political spectrum only if one chooses to accept leftist framing of the issue. I don’t.

The two groups most recently associated with racism (fake word) and militarism are Antifa and BLM. Help me out here, but what side of the spectrum were they again?

But even before that, please give me an example of extreme right wing racists and militarists exercising a show of political size and strength comparable to the former.

If the multicultural system is an inevitability that we cannot defeat, I suggest we learn to live with it, and nudge it towards our direction.

Can’t be done. On the ground, the “multicultural system” means that if you are in culture A (say, working at a job that requires some actual expertise) and a person from Culture B decides to take your stuff, then the person from Culture B gets your stuff precisely _because_ Culture B doesn’t can’t hold down a job that requires some actual expertise.

Not sustainable long term. It’s like the Hawks and Doves game [1], except that in this game the resources taken by the Hawks can make industrialization itself uneconomic. this has actually happened in Venezuela and the former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and is reported to have happened in China [2]. Think of it as yourself with a case of episodically recurring malaria. Much of what you do now would become impossible.

2] The report was that overpopulation in China after episodic Yellow River floods that temporarily destroyed arable land resulted in labor that was essentially free, which made introduction of machines uneconomic except for prestige applications. Thus, the Chinese did not develop an industrial revolution although China had paper money, fairly cheap iron, the Grand Canal, and of course considerable ingenuity.

There isn’t anything wrong per se with giving homosexuals their rights, and their marriages or whatever. That should be fine. Keep things in the bedroom and all that. The actual issue is them imposing homosexuality on us, forcing it on people, the pride parades, the quotas on TV and all of that.

I’d suggest that there’s less than zero evidence that our “Boomer President” is ” at odds with most of the corporate world”. Look at his cabinet and regulatory agency appointments, not to mention his flogging of Powell so as to flood the corporations with zero interest money with which to buy back their own stock so their officers and owners can become as wealthy as Croesus, while the dollar devalues (a stated goal of his) to the detriment of the middle class, and hidden inflation continues to keep actual (buying power) middle-class earnings at 1980’s levels. Trump is about nothing if he isn’t about helping American corporations regardless of the costs to the People who are funding them and consuming their products.

Tell that to the Japanese Meiji State, to Bismark’s Germany, or to General Park’s Korea. The fact that so many American conservatives believe this statement is just a testimony to the USA’s peculiar specificities: 1. It has always been an imperial state not a nation state 2. Slavery. Unfortunately the legacies of these two would take centuries to undo, if the country had time.

Well, to agree with that would take a complete ignorance of history. Christendom – The West – was at its strongest when it was at its most avowedly Catholic. Then again, I can imagine how a Gnostic and a historical ignoramus would go hand in hand.

“There isn’t anything wrong per se with giving homosexuals their rights, and their marriages or whatever.”

Hmmmmm . . .

look what these people choose to do in the privacy of their spaces is none of my business. However, marriage is a public as well as private matter. So on the question of marriage, the community has a legitimate right to ask what it provides to community — nothing. Therefore public assent to official marriage has reason to be rejected.

Furthermore, the agenda as it being advanced as it always has been has a negative impact on the society t large. It endorses a practice and ethos that is not founded on any real object truths.

Moderate restrictions on abortions, gun rights (more or less), wars for Israel, and tax cuts for the rich are the only thing that the GOP of the last 30 years has consistently defended. To expect anything else is to be disappointed over and over again.

Promoting the status of “benign” homosexuals has occurred at the same time as lots of corrupt and treasonous crap has also been promoted. Any civilization that stops enforcing (even in a token way) common sense moral norms is asking for a ticket to the trash heap.

We don’t need to spend within our means anymore.

We don’t need to make physical objects of value anymore.

We don’t need borders anymore.

We don’t need to expect the vast majority of young adults to marry at an early age and settle down with a stable family life anymore .

The fact that gay marriage was legalized at the same time hetrosexual marriage is in decline (especially among the bottom half of society) seems especially insidious to me.

One of my fears of gay marriage is that it opens the door to other forms of non-traditional marriage, specifically polygamy. The current trend of soft polygamy has done enough damage. The nuclear family could not survive legalized polygamy.

The stupidest people in the U.S. (the world?) today are in academia. Could negative IQ and anti-knowledge result from de-evolution? How can it be that only the uneducated are intelligent? How did it happen that the learned learned bullshit? The Devil must have done it. Or the Jooos.

Well, what more could the globalists ask for, than a gayfied, stoned, multicultural population who loves Big Brother?

Drugs, multiculturalism, homo propaganda and censorship go all together. Huxley’s Brave New World (with some hints of Orwell’s 1984 and Burgess’ Clockwork Orange and The Wanting Seed) wasn’t supposed to be a blueprint, or was it?

An article by Harry Lambert [1] gives what I consider a very good macro level description of how changes in the funding and policing rules destroyed the value of a UK education. Thatcher, it says, was responsible by identifying the clients of the universities as the students rather than as the “public good”, which i would regard as industry, government, and the population at large and, possibly, the students.

US universities were visibly going the same way in the 1980s and are now apparently as far gone as UK articles.

This leaves millennials with no marketable commercial skills, only political skills [2]. They are in favor of a stronlly socialist because they have to be — their political skills are all they have to sell, and only socialism pays for these skills. More bluntly, they hope to get a job as a political activist or political enforcer.

Counterinsurgency

1] Harry Lambert.
“The great university con: how the British degree lost its value”.
_New Statesman_, 2019/08/21.

2] This is a common situation after a revolution — the people who carried the rifles can’t do anything else, and become effectively unemployed, never receiving adequate compensation for their services during the fighting, and quite possibly never being able to marry and have a family.

The nature of GayPride is (ironically) subversive, and this makes it far more dangerous than Islamism, because it actively rots our culture from within. It was not at the direction of Muslims or Jews that all those Protestant churches started being all right with female/gay ministers.

Alignment with secular liberals is dangerous for the Right, because those secularists influence cons into making arguments like “Islam is not feminist”, which leads to the inevitable conclusion of “Christianity is not feminist”.

It’s a more difficult path, but we have to be uncompromising that we are against the Sexual Revolution.

I was taught, regarding free speech, that everybody has it or nobody has it. Is that free speech absolutism? If so, is not free speech absolutism a redundancy? Or is there some other kind of free speech.

Ridiculous. The best thing for the USA to do would be to put abortion clinics on every corner in Detroit, St. Louis, and other inner cities, as well as in Latin districts, and perhaps even for ghetto white people.

Every taxpayer – funded abortion will be saving hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in the future – not to mention overall eugenic policies.

Educated white women have the lowest abortion rate, despite also having one of the lower fertility rates. The truth is that smart, future time oriented people are smart enough to use birth control, so if they don’t want to get pregnant they probably won’t.

Atheists and communists and homos should not have the freedom to speak. We should not be “free speech absolutists” at this point. They never believed in free speech. They just used it as a weapon to con us into letting them set up shop. Now they’re in charge.

That said. I think in 2019 real life, the easier political sell is “Murka, we free speech, fuck you” rather than “well actually there is never such thing as free speech and if I were in charge I would do the same thing to them”. Public/private positions.

You don’t have to believe in a god to see how male homosexuality destroys societies. If male homosexuality emerged today as a new disorder, without the grandfathering and the propaganda machine it enjoys now, we would see its nature clearly, and it would freak out the medical community as a public health emergency. We can see the clear line connecting the normalization of gay men’s voluntary fecal exchange in their “sex acts” with the negligent toleration of allowing public defecation in our major cities.

And yet we insist that the people (many of them immigrants from the world’s least competent countries) who harvest, transport, process and serve our food know how to wash their hands with soap and water after going to the bathroom.

“Ridiculous. The best thing for the USA to do would be to put abortion clinics on every corner in Detroit, St. Louis, and other inner cities, as well as in Latin districts, and perhaps even for ghetto white people. ”

Amusing, but no. Ending welfare entitlements would be a more effective and money saving policy, as well as offering reversible (wink wink) sterilization. The ghettoization of all races is in part created by rewarding laziness with gibs. Turn off the welfare, restrict UI, and people who are suddenly finding themselves responsible for their own survival will adjust their behavior accordingly.

An additional feature of ending welfare entitlements is that quite a few alien squatters will likely return to their native origins once they can’t scam the system any longer.

Atheism as such has nothing to do with the stupid and damaging utopian nonsense that many people associate with it.

I saw this years ago when I realized that Christians and atheists both get it wrong when they argue that rejecting belief in a god will result in a sexual utopia. No, it doesn’t work that way. When a sexually unattractive Christian man renounces belief in god because he thinks that will improve his sex life, he just become a sexually unattractive atheist who still can’t get laid.

The question has been asked since the early seventies. At the time, the five terms were probably viewed in roughly similar moral terms. That being a “racist” is now clearly the worst of the five, followed probably by militarist (though possibly communist), is a testament to just how culturally dominant the left has been over the last half century.

Now I understand that attacks on Free Speech dramatically increased in the 2010’s era of Millennial and Gen Z youth. Nevertheless, these generations bear zero responsibility for obvious signs of cultural decadence

Because nothing could possibly be the fault of Millennials and Gen Z. Everyone knows they’re just helpless victims of those Evil Boomers.

This is the same kind of pathetic wallowing in victimhood that the Social Justice Warriors indulge in. Those nasty Boomers are oppressing me!

If anything private enterprise will be utilize by the left to enact social change, look at already at the big media influencers and social media sites.

We already have the libertarian solution to free speech. It doesn’t require evil governments to be involved at all. We just let private corporations silence all free speech.

Of course anyone who wants free speech can have it. All you have to do is set up your own media empire and your own social media empire and you can say whatever you like. Anyone with a few tens of billions of dollars lying around can do that. If you don’t have a few tens of billions of dollars lying around, too bad.

But that simply isn’t the case. I am single. It has never been accurate that our matching has been 1:1. The assumption is that all ,en and women get married or even seek partnerships, so the argument that polygamy would decrease the number of available women remains an assumption as opposed to something operating in the real world.

Again, I am nor advocating for polygamy. But I am not going to equate any heterosexual dynamic on par with same sex relations.

That might be accurate if all things were equal in a closed system and the manner of relationship was predicated on matching 1:1. Depending on age and location the n umber of available men to women varies.

The post-1981 era of PC, corporate greed and treachery, pop culture vulgarity, and so forth is the result of what Silents and Boomers wanted. We are still living in that era (Trump is governing as a Reaganite, and our closest cousins in the UK and Canada can’t move beyond neo-liberalism either, just look at the Brexit fiasco engulfing Britain). It’s not the era, or culture, that Gen X-ers and later generations ever wanted. The current mania for repressing free speech was something that was clearly evident, in it’s initial stages, in the late 80’s when the first campus speech codes came about. I don’t think Gen X asked for this stuff, and in any event, Silents and Boomers have scarcely ever given one ounce of attention to the needs of X-ers.

Eventually we have to move on from an era because younger generations find the era they grew up in to be lacking in some way, shape or form.

Silents and Boomers came of age in the New Deal and Great Society era, which they firmly rejected as they aged because this era, to their sensibilities, was insufficiently supportive of individual hedonistic desires. Which is how we ended up with, after 1980, Reaganite de-regulation of the markets, mainstream advertising of gambling, torture porn in mainstream theaters, yuppie asset stripping, reduced taxation of decadent rich people, and popular ownership of dangerous dogs.

In the eyes of many X-ers and Millennials, it’s hard to shake the feeling of incredulity that they get when Silents and Boomers tell them to shut up and work harder. Ignore living in a cultural cesspool of narcissism and winner takes all greed, and just work harder.

I could certainly bring up countless examples, dating to the 70’s, of people detonating their careers and public image by saying “ill-advised” things about race. At least the late 70’s, anyway; TV personality Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder publicly mused that black athletes were bred to be superior in the slavery era, for which he lost his gig and he never regained his clout afterwards. Pro-Wrestling promoter Bill Watts said in the early 90’s that blacks were better off in America than they were in Africa itself, and should be more grateful; his remarks actually went basically unnoticed for a while until Hank Aaron began making an issue of it, which resulted in Watts losing his job, and as usual he never re-gained his former clout. And let’s not forget Marge Schott, oh boy….Owner of the Cincinatti Reds in the 80’s and 90’s, she gave an interview with some rather forward language about politics, esp. as it regards gays and minorities. She was forced out almost immediately.

The current Wokeness is merely an intensified form of the the culture that decadent elites have permitted to grow under their watch. For this Millennials can’t really be blamed; they aren’t creating anything that didn’t exist already. Millennials weren’t involved in the Tawana Brawley hoax, the LA riots, or the Matthew Shephard hysteria.

The warning signs have been there, all along, for the last 40-50 years. The pre-Millennial generations did effectively nothing to stop this journey towards PC Stalinism.

That has been my position since the 1970’s. The hysterical opposition to Roe vs. Wade, to the exclusion of bread-and-butter issues, has destroyed the Right as a force promoting the interests of average Americans.

I saw this happen in my own state. There was a bill to cut off increases in public assistance for women who had additional babies while not self-supporting. The Religious Reich killed the bill because it “promoted abortion”. What it WOULD have done is destroyed the black parasite class in the state. Because of that, said black parasite class is pushing Whites out of even more territory.

The anti-abortion movement has been an utter disaster for Whites and Republicans here.

The best thing for the USA to do would be to put abortion clinics on every corner in Detroit, St. Louis, and other inner cities, as well as in Latin districts, and perhaps even for ghetto white people.

Hear, hear!

So-called conservatives who rail against abortion are in effect promoting a dysgenic society. They would encourage more low-IQ babies produced by parents who breed irresponsibly, more welfare dependency. It doesn’t matter what “moral” rationale you have for opposing abortion. The real-world outcome is further cultural degeneration.

Conservatives like to claim they see the big picture, not just immediate demands. Well, the big picture is that abortion helps put the brakes on overpopulation and on yet more procreation by the dregs of society as well as those who have no desire or capability for raising children.

Just to be clear. I am fully bought into marriage as described in 1 Corinthians 7.

I am not advocating for plural marriage in either direction, including child marriages or any such thing. That is not my point though some opportunists might attempt to make it so.

What I am saying is that even polygamy and polyandry (as some small percentage in Tibet practice) understand that the relational dynamic is one that practices male to female relations. And it really cannot be considered the same as the advocacy of same sex relations. That same sex relations advocated or elevated the same as heterosexual marriages has no support by comparison, while the afformentioned still contributes in a myriad of ways to community that same sex relations don’t and cannot.

And I agree with those that contend having adopted a standard legalizing same sex relations — the other models of marriage simply cannot be barred.

I don’t doubt it began in the sixties, with, as Kevin MacDonald showed, a lot of the intellectual seeding done in the twenties, but the nineties was when the promotion began with Philadelphia. A lot of the British soaps had their first gay character or kiss in the nineties. It amuses me watching reruns of Friends and how overtly pro gay, and Jewish, that show is in retrospect, at the time it felt jarring with the gay themes but apparently millennials have complained as Chandler still makes the odd gay joke.

It has been my fear for years that being anti-abortion would make Republicans more fiscally liberal, especially at funding single mothers. I suspected it has been happening but your story is the first specific proof I have heard. Very disturbing.

Tell that to the Japanese Meiji State, to Bismark’s Germany, or to General Park’s Korea.

You’re cheating by using real world examples! We’re talking about libertarianism man. A political philosophy with no connection whatsoever with the real world. Those guys in Japan and Germany and Korea just did real stuff in the real world. Libertarians have written books proving that libertarianism works!

The post-1981 era of PC, corporate greed and treachery, pop culture vulgarity, and so forth is the result of what Silents and Boomers wanted.

Or alternatively the post-1981 PC, corporate greed and treachery, pop culture vulgarity, and so forth are the result of what the super-rich and the mega-corporations wanted.

But as long as you want to blame Boomers for everything then the people who are actually running the show and have been running it for decades, the bankers and the billionaires and Woke Capital, know that they’re in no danger of ever being called to account.

Be careful not to fall into the trap of seeing the world the way the corporate whores of Woke Capital want you to see it. They’re experts in divide and rule. If they get Gen X-ers and Millennials and Boomers squabbling amongst themselves they’re free to go on looting the country, and the world.

I don’t doubt it began in the sixties, with, as Kevin MacDonald showed, a lot of the intellectual seeding done in the twenties, but the nineties was when the promotion began with Philadelphia. A lot of the British soaps had their first gay character or kiss in the nineties.

If you immerse yourself deeply in 20th century pop culture (as I’ve done) you’ll notice that Wokeness was making its first tentative appearances back in the 50s. Those Hollywood Social Problem movies, which were huge in the 50s (and started in the late 40s) being prime examples – they’re pure Social Justice stuff. By the early 60s American television was definitely getting Woke (watch the original Star Trek or Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone for an example of hardline cultural liberalism).

The first avowedly pro-homosexual mainstream British movie was Victim, back in 1961.

Woke Capital was there in embryo in the 1950s, promoting social radicalism to distract the masses from actual leftism.

It certainly started to accelerate in the 90s but that’s because the Woke were starting to feel confident enough to be a lot more overt.

WHITES are being replaced at a rapid clip in European Christian nations.

The ruling classes of European Christian nations are dramatically changing the racial demographics of their nations so that Whites are being replaced.

So-called “diversity” simply means less White people.

The White genocide and White race replacement going on in the USA and Germany and many other European Christian nations is simply the evil immigration policy plots of the treasonous ruling classes in those nations.

“Polygamy makes sense in earlier societies when large numbers of the menfolk died off early in wars.”

Well,

that is not a discussion that I would entertain. My position is”

1. heterosexual polygamy has some value to community

2. that value outstrips any community value that same sex relations provides

3. that having severed protections and encouragement of traditional male female relations, it going to be a very hard case not to legalize other forms marriage —-

4. That having legalized same sex relations as equal to heterosexual dynamic — our society has unwittingly or perhaps deliberately by the intent of feminists, libertarians, and deconstructionists, have added another destructive dynamic to the US ethos.

Despite my disagreements with christians on double standards I think the 1 Corinthians understanding is best suited for any community’s well being and extension

Yes, I don’t understand why so many comments here seem to overlook this. Talking about “boomers”, “Gen Z/X”, “silent” is nonsense when you have Somalians and Puerto Ricans replacing you. Do people here believe that Somalian “boomers” (because I am very sure Somalians do not use such categories) were pro free speech and Somalian Zs are against it? This stupid American generation labelling of people is already part of the problem.

It’s Boomers that chose to shop at Walmart by and large. It’s Boomers that chose to watch the NFL, and its mostly Boomers in the stands. These weren’t decisions made by the elite, they were made as the aggregate result of millions of individuals.

And it was Boomer parents and Boomers in the education industry that prodded their Millennial children into the higher ed scam.

And its mostly Boomers that are GOP primary voters. Only they can evict their globalist House rep and Senator.

It’s about prodding them into moral accountability. Not everything is top down, I believe that people do have moral agency.

In retrospect, Pinochet damaged the Right’s longer term electoral prospects in Chile. Only one right-wing candidate has ever won the presidency since 1990, Sebastian Pinera, a rather moderate billionaire. Left-wing candidates have won all the other elections, and will probably win the next one.

It should also go without saying that endorsing torture is wrong. It was wrong for Mandela to have endorsed the necklace, and it was wrong for Pinochet to have endorsed dogs.

In this clown world culture, of Tinder, hookups, negrification, and single moms, it’s irresponsible to just strike down the legality of abortion. It’s not going to fix anything. People will just start killing their babies, and I don’t think I’m exaggerating (alternatively more blacks and Hispanics will be born).

How about Evangelicals (and Catholics) build a culture of excellence for themselves, where abortions are simply not necessary. Run the church well, keep the young men and women attractive and in good shape, do some good match making, and tell them “fuck away” once they are married at 23 or 24.

This is not possible for blacks, unfortunately, but even blacks had a much higher legitimacy rate during Jim Crow.

Alas, rates of child abuse among both whites and blacks went up and down in a similar fashion from the mid 20th century-1990’s. Black kids born in the 1940’s were much less likely to be abused than black kids born in the 70’s, and white kids born in the 1940’s were much less likely to be abused than white kids born in the 1970’s.

Point being, generational differences are valid across races. Rates of drinking (from teenagerhood to middle age) are highest among people born in the 1950’s and 60’s. Later generations are substantially less white, but less apt to be killing their livers like today’s middle aged whites.

The cultural phases we go through effect all races, and have an effect on all races (though the exact degree of impact differs from one race to another).

I’m not suggesting that all ethnic groups are interchangeable. But across many nations, there clearly are distinct cultural phases that create generational differences.

It’s Boomers that chose to shop at Walmart by and large. It’s Boomers that chose to watch the NFL, and its mostly Boomers in the stands. These weren’t decisions made by the elite, they were made as the aggregate result of millions of individuals.

Target is bigger with Gen X, Boomers are more friendly to Walmart, but most supportive of Aldi. As I implied a longer time frame, it would figure that Boomers supported Walmart for several decades, Aldi is a relative newcomer to about half of the country.

Still, Fox News isn’t alone in attracting a mostly senior audience. If you look at MSNBC and CNN demographics, you’ll find only slightly younger audiences in recent years, and the median age of MSNBC viewers hit 65 in 2017. (Overall, seniors watch the most TV by a significant margin.)

The female numerical advantage all comes at the oldest end of the spectrum, though. That there are a lot more women in their eighties and nineties than there are men doesn’t have much influence on the dating market.

Well, I’ve got some bad news on that front then. The ADL (the group that trains police officers, gets people fired for innocuous statements on Israel, forces congressmen to apologize for using “cosmopolitan elite” and was once accused of keeping intelligence files on millions of Americans) has successfully convinced YouTube to ban several more YouTube channels in their long march against freedom; this follows them getting Amazon to ban books critical of the Jewish lobby (but not books critical of whites or Christians), including one Unz himself wrote about that exposed the truth of the Leo Frank case. One channel was by a guy named James Allsup. I’m familiar with his content. There was nothing remotely derogatory in it. Rather, the channel was banned because this fascist ethnic group couldn’t counter any of his points as he debunked their propaganda.

But truthfully, a lot of this is the right’s fault. They wanted to stay and fight when you posted about partition, remember? Well, this is the inevitable result: your enemy defeats you totally and you get nothing. The only solution the preserves our freedom is separation. You’re not taking back America because there is nothing left to take back. Freedom? Forget it. Just look at these polls. Community? Lol. Millennials say they care nothing for patriotism or having families, and I don’t blame them. There’s nothing in this society worth being loyal to, and it’s too expensive to have kids (thanks Libertarians) so why not live for the moment and cast away concern for the future? It’s over, and this empire is coming crashing down within the next few decades.

Assuming partition happens, we need to then rethink how our society and government is run and the principles upon which they are based; clearly, groups like the ADL cannot be permitted to exist. If you aren’t willing to go down that route, prepare to live in a totalitarian state that stomps on your face everyday for the rest of your life. They’ll import hundreds of millions of foreigners in a vain attempt to compete with China. Imagine how bad things are now. Now, imagine how bad they’ll be.

” 61% of women who identify themselves as NFL fans state that something needs to be done about the pattern of concussions that is affecting players. This is compared to 47% of men.

A point for Rosie here.”

Not really. All those numbers reflect is that women feel more conflicted about enjoying the violence of a sport that can result in serious injury to the participants than men do. Saying “something must be done” is just hollow gesturing, because the only way to come close to eliminate concussions in the NFL (or in any sport) is to eliminate physical contact between players (La’cam Kapernick could always trip and bump his little pointy head on the turf.) I expect that most people represented in the above know this, but virtue signaling is a thing. The reality is the violent collisions between large humans is one of the reason the sport is so popular.

My beef is that Shepard’s beating and murder was no more deserving of wall to wall media coverage than the many similar crimes that have occured over the years. It turned into a media firestorm because Shepard’s gay peers called a lot of media outlets and claimed that homophobic killers had targeted Shepard. Shepard, in his early 20’s, already had contracted HIV and been beaten severely in Europe a couple years before he died. Gay men have extremely poor long-term prospects because they live “high-risk” lifestyles. How many children were beaten severely and/or killed in 1996, who were far more innocent and sympathetic than some decadent fairy?

I’m going to go the other way here. I see the non-white left as either embracing or becoming more supportive of behaviors that their groups are more likely to engage in. Hispanics are a good indicator here as they used to be less supportive of GayPride, but now they are just as supportive as whites.

There was also a recent poll that showed diversity is more supportive of transgenderism than are whites. One possible explination for that: diversity is not as dimorphic as pastoralist Europeans and MENAs and therefore more susceptible to the trans propaganda.

Millennials wanted Bernie to win back in 2016, and he doesn’t care about PC ID politics. Had the aging established Left not been desperately trying to give Hilary “her” turn, we could’ve dodged Orange Hitler and the massive rise in idiotic ID politics and hysteria of the last several years.

And to this day, we have the Obama to Bernie/Obama to Trump voters feeling frustrated and gypped, while the establishment Left is clueless about ditching neo-liberalism and is taking advantage of the more educated/more striving young SJW leftists to prevent reforms from happening.

When one considers the massive amounts of $ that millionaire and billionaire Silents and Boomers have been funneling into the mainstream Left to promote gays, trannies, drug legalization, open borders, and so forth, it ought to become clear that the impoverished generations (Gen X and beyond) aren’t responsible for the mess we are in. It was already clear in the mid-late 70’s that we were going down this road, and did you think that the generations who weren’t even given an opportunity to make a decent living (those who became employed after 1980) were going to be able to stop the insanity? David Kaiser places the blame for the Civil War (and the ugly Reconstruction period) on John Brown’s generation of narcissistic do-gooders, who were born in the early 19th century and thus formed much of America’s leadership in the 1860’s and 1870’s. Similarly, the now Civil War type atmosphere that’s developed in America since circa 2000 coincides with the leadership of another generation of narcissistic wannabe crusaders: the Boomers. The younger generations of the late 19th century became detached and alienated, much like how Gen X and Millennials have become increasingly melancholy over the last few decades.

It’s difficult to envision any other outcome to this besides a repeat of the Civil War/Reconstruction/Gilded age (circa 1860-1930) era of weak institutions, fairly regular outbursts of mass violence (mass murders/terrorism/assassinations/vigilante killings), and nihilistic disregard for wholesome norms. We’ve been headed toward this ever since circa 1970, when Silents and Boomers aggressively attacked the well-regulated behavioral and cultural norms that the Missionary, Lost, and GI Generation middle-upper class worked so hard to implement in the Progressive and New Deal era.

Even if you fix the culture (especially getting rid of mudsharking), you will still have rape and severe birth defects. Ironically, dealing with the latter means almost exclusively late-term abortions.

This is a very flawed world and just because some things are ugly to our cultured eyes it does not mean that they do not remain necessary.

When the boomers finally exit stage left, the witch hunting won’t relent–it will probably get even worse.

It’s Silents who are going to leave the stage (the youngest Silents are now about 75 years old); whereas the youngest Boomers (who were last born in 1960 or 1964 depending on who you ask) are still in their mid-50’s. Boomers for at least the next 20 years are going to remain powerful, wealthy, and boldly supportive of highly destabilizing people and ideas. That’s what Boomers have done their entire lives; they destabilized schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, and families. Naive legislation and mistakes by Losts, GIs, and Silents did enable some of this crap (certainly, the unwillingess of GI parents to tell their Boomer kids to shut the f**k up back in the Leave it to Beaver days didn’t help), but nobody force the Boomers to do massive levels of drugs, start the AIDS epidemic, and get divorced at historic rates. And nobody forced them to so horribly botch their personal finances and the government’s finances.

I hate to keep harping on this stuff, but every time someone goes after Millennials, I don’t have much choice. My generation ironically gets along far better with their parents than X-ers or Boomers did. Millennials knew all along that they’d never be able to count on the system as a whole being able to effectively take care of it’s own, maybe older generations could say the same but the difference is that Silents and Boomers had ample resources and opportunities which they obviously completely squandered WRT protecting the commons, while later generations started out with essentially nothing and haven’t gained much since.

That’s really an issue because we simply don’t engage dating on any 1 to 1 basis.

It is not as if one is back at an elementary school dance where the teachers line every body and pairs them off for a dance.

It is just not that organized. And it even less organized in the modern world of internet dating, and “hooking up” which as I understand it is more popular than ever and the decline of the traditional settings such as churches and civic organizations.

The impact of polygamy in these environments is most likely going to be nil. Taking a look at the Mormons, they still managed to have traditional marriages right along side their plural systems, their populations continued to flourish.

Again, I want to be very careful not to get drawn into a debate about the efficacy of plural marriage. My position is that when compared to same sex dynamics — it is by far a more beneficial and even legitimate model as to what it provides.
———————–

And again I agree with you. Once the case is granted for same sex marriage, their is practically no ground aside from age to bar other models.

it ought to become clear that the impoverished generations (Gen X and beyond) aren’t responsible for the mess we are in.

They haven’t done much to get us out of the mess. I suspect they simply have no understanding of what is wrong or what to do about it. You can’t tell them that immigration might be causing some of the problems, or that immigration is being pushed by the right because the right wants cheap labour. They’ll simply tell you that borders are racist and racism is wrong.

You can’t tell them that cultural and social degeneracy is causing many of their problems. They’ll tell you that opposing cultural and social degeneracy is sexist and homophobic and sexism and homophobia are wrong.

You can’t tell them that Social Justice is a smokescreen intended to distract them from the machinations of bankers and billionaires. They’ll tell you that opposing Social Justice is just wrong.

You know what the big problem is? Conservative-identifying Immigration restrictionists won’t vote for a Democrat even if he’s more immigration restrictionist than any Republican candidate. Because Democrats are commies and you have to vote Republican.

Conservative-identifying social conservatives wouldn’t vote for a Democrat even if he’s stronger on those issues than any Republican candidate. Because Democrats are commies and you have to vote Republican.

And the dissident rightists have been a failure because they identify as right-wing. They’re still stuck in hopelessly out-of-date beliefs in left and right. They focus too much on the left/right thing instead of looking at which candidate might actually produce better results.

In retrospect voting for Bernie would have been smarter than voting for Trump. But you can’t vote for Bernie ’cause he’s a goddamn pinko commie and a Democrat. You have to vote Republican.

There’s been a great YouTube purge concomitant with your post. Most of the commenters were conservative and none of them were big into using racial slurs. The ADL, America’s secret police, led an effort to get them banned. These channels range from videogame channels to politics. Some had nearly half a millions subscribers. This is straight up fascism. Separate countries. Let’s get to it. There is no solution in the current political arrangement. Already I see some potential targets on social media begging Trump to do something. He’s not going to. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he were behind considering his fealty to Israel. Putting your trust in this buffoon will only bring trouble. It’s time to separate. The longer we wait, the greater the oppression. Eventually, separation will become impossible and you’ll live in a full totalitarian state. You’re well on your way already.

List of banned accounts:

Vdare
American Krogan (video game)
James Allsup
Iconoclast
Mister Metokur
Way of the World
AIM
TRS Radio
Alt-Woke

*Black Pigeon Speaks. Previously banned but likely to be banned again soon. There are also rumors they’ve blacklisted The Quartering, a video game channel.

the unwillingess of GI parents to tell their Boomer kids to shut the f**k up back in the Leave it to Beaver days didn’t help), but nobody force [sic] the Boomers to do massive levels of drugs, start the AIDS epidemic, and get divorced at historic rates. And nobody forced them to so horribly botch their personal finances and the government’s finances.

I think most of this nonsense has been debunked already upstream, but you do know, don’t you, that Ronald Reagan was no Baby Boomer? It was his administration that turned the U.S.A. into a debtor nation for the first time with “Voodoo Economics.” It was his administration that granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens, thus opening the flood gates to illegal immigration. It was his administration that set the stage for loss of U.S. industry by transferring industrial technology to China, and selling the Chinese U.S. nuclear reactors.

The AIDS epidemic started immediately after a hepatitis vaccination program in NYC and SF. Most likely, it is a man-made disease.

My generation of Baby Boomers born immediately after the war also racked up some of the highest SAT scores ever since most of us learned to read before there was even a TV in the house, but you seem to think there is some relationship to “Leave It to Beaver” because it is the generations who came along later who have spent their entire lives in front of the boob tube, not the older Baby Boomers.

25 years after I graduated from college, I easily passed the CBEST on my first try, while many younger candidates had to take the test repeatedly

I graduated from high school in 1964. There was no pot around then, and all my female classmates wore skirts and dresses to class and none of the guys wore jeans or sneakers. After Kennedy was shot, my class sometimes got together to sing folk songs.

Too bad you missed out on the good days, but don’t blame me or my fellow older Boomers for it.

I suggest watching the excellent PBS documentary “The Fifties” to get a better understanding of recent U.S. history, since you’re obviously mixed up about a lot of it.

I’ll close by mentioning the widely reviled Joe McCarthy. There were many Reds in the U.S. establishment, just as “Tail Gunner Joe” said there were, but it was McCarthy who was demonized in the MSM by the likes of Edward R. Murrow on “See it Now,” where the power of the boob tube was turned against McCarthy with devastating results.

We now know that the campaign against McCarthy was being run from behind the scenes by Pres. Eisenhower, and we also know, thanks to the Venona intercepts and Soviet defectors that McCarthy had been right all along.

Of course, all the Soviet agents in the U.S. had been doing nothing but good things for our country, and they were free to carry on their work after being absolved by Murrow, so there’s that.

But may I suggest that you learn a little U.S. history before playing the blame game?

The baby boomers and those born before 1965 must be financially liquidated.

The best way to financially liquidate those born before 1965 would be to immediately raise the federal funds rate to twenty percent like it was in 1981.

The asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate would instantaneously implode if the federal funds rate were to be raised to twenty percent.

The plutocrat globalizers bought off the brain dead nation-wreckers born before 1965 with government debt and asset bubbles that enriched them. White Core American Patriots born after 1965 must gain control of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank and then immediately implode all asset bubbles in the USA and the rest of the globe.

Once the asset bubbles are imploded immediate deportations of all illegal alien invaders and citizenship revocations can be used to remove 50 or 60 million foreigners and their spawn.

It was a moral test to go to a debt-based fiat currency system and those born before 1965 failed miserably. God will send those bastards born before 1965 straight to the hottest pits of fiery HELL!

All I am saying is give asset bubble implosions a chance!

I am only being extreme to get you to think about central banking and central banker shysters!

“A gay hooker/drug addict gets beaten up and killed by drug dealers, and this is put down to “homophobia” by the gullible mainstream media.”

It’s not gullibility, it’s more like brainwashing. Journalists are taught that society is racist/sexist/homophobic, so when a gay man is killed, that’s the go-to explanation. Who would want to dig in the details of the Shepard story? Some kind of homophobic nut caring about the truth?

“Refuse to stone sluts sluts become emboldened. Refuse to throw gays off buildings or force them underground and they will be belligerent.”

I gays we should toss liars, thieves, etc. into the pit. The problem then arises, who has not committed an act worthy of being tossed, stoned or burned to death. I am not defending same sex behavior, lying, thieving or relations out of wedlock. But for the system to exact these types of penalties, it must be engaged by those who have some ultimate moral authority.

All citizens have rights, even those engaged in behaviors I might find objectionable, to say the least. The question what rights, why those rights. The reason we bestow so much value on hetrerosexual marriage is because of what it provides to community at large. We should protect that right by acknowledging its exclusive contribution.

But if you suggested that I throw myself off a cliff because I have failed to marry and produce children — you are going to get a fight you could not imagine.

We can push back against harlotry and same sex behavior without stoning the entire country’s population.
———————

“No one ever got fired for blaming a white straight man”

I am not sure that is accurate in either direction. I don’t know of anyone who was terminated for falsely accusing others. But this is a near guarantee, in the history of false accusations, more blacks have turned out on the street.

It depends on the definition. Dictionary.com defines it as a belief in the superiority of one’s own race and/or the inferiority of other races. I don’t consider a height of 6’2″ to be superior to a height of 5’10”, at least not in all applications, but others will accuse me of it anyway. And if their accusations are the standard, then the only way not to be a racist is to pretend that all human traits are randomly distributed across the global population–obviously untrue–or, even more risible, to pretend that all humans are the same at the start and all the variations we observe are a consequence of environmental factors.

And “superior/inferior” needs to be further defined. The ultimate biological test of “superiority” is net fertility. Some races have gone extinct as a result of being “inferior” in that contest. Is it racist to assume the west hunters were superior to Neanderthals?

There is also the crucial concept of probability. Noting that West Africans tend to be faster sprinters than East Asians doesn’t imply that every West African is faster than every East Asian. The latter is obviously untrue. To act as though it is true is wrong, and morally wrong once its lack of truth has been explained to a person.

Hating someone exclusively because of his race is morally wrong, but wanting nothing to do with a person because of his race is rigid but not necessarily morally wrong.

You know what the big problem is? Conservative-identifying Immigration restrictionists won’t vote for a Democrat even if he’s more immigration restrictionist than any Republican candidate.

We won’t have any way of knowing how many conservatives would vote for a Democrat who is more restrictionist than the Republican candidate until, well, there is such an actual contest. D’oh!

There is a actually history of a sizeable number of self-identifying conservatives voting for Dems at state and local levels despite voting GOP in federal elections. So to state categorically that they would never vote for a Democrat who responded to their concerns is ignorant. They have to have a reason to do so though.

In retrospect voting for Bernie would have been smarter than voting for Trump. But you can’t vote for Bernie ’cause he’s a goddamn pinko commie and a Democrat.

Trump didn’t run against Bernie. He ran against completely open borders Hillary. Surely you heard about this?

Besides, in the Democratic race Bernie regularly condemned Trump on immigration and used hate whitey rhetoric. Maybe he wouldn’t have been any worse than Trump on immigration but other than one statement four years ago to Vox about open borders being a Koch brothers idea Bernie has shown every indication of being willing to support his party’s increasingly extreme policies on immigration.

I think most of this nonsense has been debunked already upstream, but you do know, don’t you, that Ronald Reagan was no Baby Boomer? It was his administration that turned the U.S.A. into a debtor nation for the first time with “Voodoo Economics.” It was his administration that granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens, thus opening the flood gates to illegal immigration. It was his administration that set the stage for loss of U.S. industry by transferring industrial technology to China, and selling the Chinese U.S. nuclear reactors.

The Boomers are the largest and most wealthy generation in history; surely by now they could’ve reversed these mistakes, no?

You see, why is it that we have to buy the excuses of Boomers, who are now in their 60’s and 70’s? Were they, and are they, that powerless to make a positive difference? Did FDR and the other Progressive elites throw their hands up in the air, in the 1920’s and 30’s, and say that we were screwed because of the mistakes that were made in the Gilded Age (back in the 1920’s our nation’s elders had the balls to slam our borders shut in spite of many Ellis Islanders being hostile toward restriction)? Maybe if Boomers would stop living in the past, and focused on pooling their (ample) wealth and power toward common sense reforms of the present, we’d actually get somewhere. But just like in the late 19th century, we’ve now descended to a point where the older generations who make up most leadership refuse to act with any sort of character or accountability. It’s all finger pointing, all the time.

My generation of Baby Boomers born immediately after the war also racked up some of the highest SAT scores ever since most of us learned to read before there was even a TV in the house, but you seem to think there is some relationship to “Leave It to Beaver” because it is the generations who came along later who have spent their entire lives in front of the boob tube, not the older Baby Boomers.

In spite of all this, the early Boomers were still headstrong, arrogant, and narcissistic. Society’s ability to sustain any sort of strong civic culture, and any camaraderie, was heavily damaged by the quintessential Boomer trait of not being able to get along well with others. Drug use, violence, crime, and promiscuity are all traits that increase as you go from the earliest Boomers to the later ones. The “Silent generation” got it’s name because of their conformity to the rules, and their relative cautiousness. It’s the GI and Silent generation who were chiefly responsible for the character of the 1950’s, not the Boomer generation (GI=1901-1924, Silent Gen was born from about 1924-1944).

I graduated from high school in 1964. There was no pot around then, and all my female classmates wore skirts and dresses to class and none of the guys wore jeans or sneakers. After Kennedy was shot, my class sometimes got together to sing folk songs.

Drug use and drinking rose from 1960-1980, year after year; the Silent gen. were partly responsible for this, but the primary offenders were Boomers. If you watch movies and TV shows from the late 60’s and 70’s, it’s not surprising how often people are seen drinking. It is true that these trends did not becoming overwhelming obvious until the 1970’s, but we were already heading down that road in the 60’s. A classmate of Jeffrey Dahmer, born in 1960, wrote a comic book type memoir of high school life in the late 70’s, and it was about as “wholesome” as you can imagine. That girls bared their midriff was about the least salacious thing about that era’s culture. I mean, by 1979 many “adult bookstores” were selling kittie pron on the down low. 1977-1980 was one of America’s moral and social low-points, no doubt about it*. And it’s Silents and Boomers who need to accept responsibility for that. And while they did some token things in the 80’s to make sure to clear up some of the lingering stench of the late 70’s, they sure as hell could’ve done more. We got fatter in the 80’s, for one thing.

*Many people’s stereotypical vision of the 1960’s seems to more accurately describe the cesspool of the Jimmy Carter era.

The AIDS epidemic started immediately after a hepatitis vaccination program in NYC and SF. Most likely, it is a man-made disease.

Regardless, it was spread mainly via epic levels of non-stop sex (especially butt sex) within the gay Boomer community. Boomers did essentially nothing in the 1970’s to discourage promiscuity. Valid cases of HIV were initially seen in 1960’s Africa and the Caribbean, and spread elsewhere gradually (the earliest suspected case of HIV in America was among a young black male in the late 60’s:

“In early 1968, a black 15 year-old teenager named Robert Rayford admitted himself to City Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri.[5] His legs and genitals were covered in warts and sores. He also had severe swelling of the testicles and pelvic region, which later spread to his legs, causing a misdiagnosis of lymphedema. He had grown thin and pale and suffered from shortness of breath. Rayford told the doctors that he had experienced these symptoms since at least late 1966. Tests discovered a severe chlamydia infection which had, unusually, spread throughout his body. Rayford declined a rectal examination request from hospital personnel,[3] and was described as uncommunicative and withdrawn.[5] Doctors treating Rayford suspected that he was the victim of child molestation and was the recipient of receptive anal intercourse.[3][7] Eventually, he was moved to Barnes-Jewish Hospital (then called Barnes Hospital)”

“In late 1968 Rayford’s condition seemed to have stabilized, but by March 1969 his symptoms reappeared and had worsened. He had increased difficulty breathing, and his white blood cell count had plummeted. The doctors found that his immune system was dysfunctional. He developed a fever and died of pneumonia[5] at 11:20 pm on May 15, 1969. ”

Elsewhere it’s stated that doctors suspected he may have been working as a prostitute; though it’s possible Rayford was a straight street kid who had been raped on several occasions by gay men, one of whom gave him HIV, it’s also possible that we was a highly promiscuous homo and/or IV drug user who was so degenerate that he manifested symptoms of advanced AIDS a good 10 years before most early American AIDS victims did. 1976 is often regarded as the year in which many gay men started to get much sicker than they normally did; as late stage AIDS began to undeniably manifest itself around 1980, it eventually became clear that many of these gay men were having lots of sex even though their health had been failing for several years; all of these mutually ill people frequently having sex was of course going to create an epidemic.

Why did AIDS began among Africans and their descendants first? Blacks have higher rates of sex, homosexuality, and sexual assault than other races. Damage to the vagina or anus is probably more common among the average black than it is among the average person of another race. A “scraped” vagina or anus is more likely to contract an infection, and with HIV, there’s good reason to believe that it’s primarily transmitted via damaged body tissue (indeed, some woman have slept with HIV positive men and not contracted HIV, most likely because the receptive female partner was healthy and did not receive abrasions from the activity).

They haven’t done much to get us out of the mess. I suspect they simply have no understanding of what is wrong or what to do about it. You can’t tell them that immigration might be causing some of the problems, or that immigration is being pushed by the right because the right wants cheap labour. They’ll simply tell you that borders are racist and racism is wrong.

Are you familiar with the Hiddentribes.us study? The SJW Left in 2017 was primarily under 30, female, and well-educated. And this only encompasses about 10% of the entire population. The corporate powers that be (who are bankrolled by Boomers) and the neo-lib Democrats (again, bankrolled by Boomers) have thrust the SJW Left into the ostensible “mainstream” to desperately divert attention away from how screwed up our economic and foreign policies are. The modern Left placates “minorities” and frightened white liberals by telling them that only through the embrace of hardcore ID politics will we be able to fend off the rising tide of neo-Nazis. When the study was done in 2017, SJW zeal was mainly a minority view voiced by clueless college girls. As of right now, though, it’s been pushed onto a lot more people due to non-stop propaganda about Neo-Nazis electing and supporting Trump (and shooting up Wal-Marts).

It has become impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything, much less immigration, because the (Boomer led) establishment has so inflamed discourse over the last several years (when Hilary lost, the “centrist” Left aka Boomer Left realized that the easiest card to play was ID politics, that’s why this stuff got so much worse after she lost). Dean Baquet (b. 1956) became executive editor of the NY Times in 2014, and he recently oversaw the notorious “1619” project to “re-frame” American history. I suggest you go back and watch political debate shows of the 1970’s and 80’s, which usually involved Silents, to get an idea of what Boomers have done to our discourse (some time ago I came across a C-Span segment in which Silent Joe Sobran questioned the Israel lobby and dual loyalty issue, and the Silent TV host didn’t immediately jump on Sobran and strangle him.

The money, the power, the opportunity to shape discourse, etc., it all stems from Boomers nowadays. Back when it was GIs and Silents, the culture that we had spoke for itself. And it didn’t speak very loudly. I find it a little bit rich that tantrum throwing and narrow-minded Boomers would accuse X-ers or Millennials of corrupting discourse.

“Regardless, it was spread mainly via epic levels of non-stop sex (especially butt sex) within the gay Boomer community. Boomers did essentially nothing in the 1970’s to discourage promiscuity. Valid cases of HIV were initially seen in 1960’s Africa and the Caribbean, and spread elsewhere gradually (the earliest suspected case of HIV in America was among a young black male in the late 60’s”

Some of you might want to take the time to actually read the “The River : A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS…”,

“Regardless, it was spread mainly via epic levels of non-stop sex (especially butt sex) within the gay Boomer community. Boomers did essentially nothing in the 1970’s to discourage promiscuity. Valid cases of HIV were initially seen in 1960’s Africa and the Caribbean, and spread elsewhere gradually (the earliest suspected case of HIV in America was among a young black male in the late 60’s”

Some of you might want to take the time to actually read the “The River : A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS…”,

Few men have been attacked as Mr. Edward Hooper and the media and scientific campaign has been eager to silence the results of his research since it was published.

The history of the continent of Africa demonstrates that instead if being the breeder of devastating illness and disease, she had been the recipient of diseases brought from Europeans, as has been the case in the Americas. The notion that Africans in the region of Kinshasa suddenly developed a disease from eating monkey brains after thousands of years of supposedly doing so — is ridiculous on its face. Much like the practice of eating monkey brains as common practice

It has generally been considered a food of Asian cultures most often — nonetheless, the logic here is terribly flawed. HIV did not originate there either.

And it is tragic that even Indian scientists have jumped on the Kinshasa contend, no evidence supports it, but that hasn’t stopped a female Indian researcher at UCSD from advocating it via DNA research — snore. Read her analysis — mighty thin. But it runs along mainstream thinking so she gets a gold star from the establishment

The Boomers are the largest and most wealthy generation in history; surely by now they could’ve reversed these mistakes, no?

Sure, that’s easy to say, hard to do. What have you done? Try getting the billions back from the neocons. Try chasing the illegal aliens out of the country, or try getting our industry back from China. In your shallow thoughts, just a snap of Baby Boomer fingers is all it would take, because we’re rolling in dough. Yeah, right. Remember the S&L crisis swindle? Whose money was that and where did it go?

I sure as hell never voted for Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushes, but I bet you did.

If you watch movies and TV shows from the late 60’s and 70’s, it’s not surprising how often people are seen drinking.

So in your mind what is showing on TV in the late ’60s and ’70s is an accurate representation of American life, and Baby Boomers are responsible for it?

Clearly, you’re just babbling and have no real idea what you’re talking about: The oldest Boomers were 24 in 1970, and few of us were in charge of anything, let alone TV programming. In fact, I was still overseas on active duty in 1970.

You’re all mixed up about cause and effect, but determined to play the blame game, so I must tell you that makes you a useful idiot to the TPTB, helping them divide and rule. Ever hear the term?

Most of what is on the boob tube is propaganda, and sure, a lot of people are influenced by what is on televsion, but Boomers, not so much. Why? Because my cohort didn’t have TV at first, and when we got it, it was so shitty, many of us ridiculed it right out of the box, and have never stopped.

Again, it is you younger guys who’ve been under the influence of TV your entire lives, which at least partly explains your distorted view of history, poor SAT scores, and the need to blame your problems on someone else. Brave of you to pick on old people.

In spite of all this, the early Boomers were still headstrong, arrogant, and narcissistic.

Just because you say so, but my how you guys love to parrot that label narcissistic, when you’re just copy cats, and of course none of you are affected by vanity when you point fingers at others.

This is a real beaut:

Did FDR and the other Progressive elites throw their hands up in the air, in the 1920’s and 30’s, and say that we were screwed

I see that VDare’s channel was reinstated. It looks like the work of a rogue YT employee (or several). I’m not too familiar with VDare’s videos or Allsup’s channel, but I’ve seen clips here and there and have never seen anything YT would be able to justify canning.

Re: political dissolution, I try not to even spitball about the contours of what comes after. The argument is for freedom, harmony, and self-determination for as many people as possible.

I’m not very familiar with any of these, some I’ve not even heard of. What’s the putative objection(s) for the video game channels? Are they “alt-right” reviews or playthroughs, or is it considered a legacy of gamergate?

So in your mind what is showing on TV in the late ’60s and ’70s is an accurate representation of American life, and Baby Boomers are responsible for it?

Yes, it was accurate because statistics prove that drinking got progressively worse as the 60’s and 70’s went on. Then, in the 80’s (which you seem to think was the worst decade ever), states that didn’t adopt more restrictive policies regarding drinking were threatened with denial of federal highway funds. Mothers Against Drunk Driving became influential. Smoking bans were widely enacted, for the first time (my mom smoked in the hospital in 1983, but by the time I was born in 1985 it wasn’t allowed anymore). Young Boomers were more supportive of pot legalization in the 70’s than older generations were; by the late 80’s Gen X youth were pretty against pot legalization.

Look, I know that Leftists love to treat the 80’s as a pinata (and they do have some good reasons), but the 60’s and especially 1970’s* had lots of problems. Peter Turchin says (backed up by lots of data) that Americans became healthier, happier, and more financially secure from 1900-1960, then in 1961 cracks in the foundation start to widen again.

*In addition to the aforementioned indulgence in people’s lifestyles, immigration levels were raised in the later 70’s (Eisenhower’s operation wet-back deterred illegal border crossings for quite some time, but this deterrent had worn off by the late 70’s). Off-shoring of industry began in earnest in the 70’s. Roe V Wade took effect in the mid-70’s. Women entered the workforce in large numbers for the first time in the 70’s, which had an incredibly de-stabilizing effect on families and neighborhoods that has never fully dissipated (also, women began initiating large numbers of divorces in the 70’s). Turchin tends to say that 1975 was the year that all of these trends began to heavily affect a large layer of the populace, and we’ve yet to recover.

Clearly, you’re just babbling and have no real idea what you’re talking about: The oldest Boomers were 24 in 1970, and few of us were in charge of anything, let alone TV programming. In fact, I was still overseas on active duty in 1970.

I could care less who was in charge of TV or the movie studios in the 70’s. Ultimately, if people were living seedier lives by 1970 then TV and movies were going to reflect that, just like how “gangster” movies became popular in the late 20’s and early 30’s because of pervasive organized crime activity of that time.

The SJW Left in 2017 was primarily under 30, female, and well-educated.

So in other words the people who are causing most of the trouble are Millennials.

You often make very good and very important points but then you undercut those points with the silly generational nonsense. You seem to be unwilling to consider that maybe, just maybe, the significant factors are that this SJW rubbish is pushed by the college-educated (whether they’re college-educated Boomers or Gen X-ers or Millennials) and that what needs to be done is to burn the higher education system to the ground and start again.

You seem to be unwilling to consider that maybe, just maybe, this dangerous rubbish is being pushed by the ruling class (whether they be ruling class Silents or Boomers or Gen X-ers or Millennials).

Lots of Boomers were responsible for very bad things but the Boomers who did the real damage did so not because they were Boomers but because they were college-educated and/or members of the ruling class.

Just try setting the generational obsession aside for a moment and consider other factors.

You often make very good and very important points but then you undercut those points with the silly generational nonsense. You seem to be unwilling to consider that maybe, just maybe, the significant factors are that this SJW rubbish is pushed by the college-educated (whether they’re college-educated Boomers or Gen X-ers or Millennials) and that what needs to be done is to burn the higher education system to the ground and start again.

1) Each group of elites (or each “generation” of elites) is worst than the last. Moreover, each generation of elites seems to take the crappy ideas of the previous generation….And make them worse! This has been going on since the mid-1960’s (per Peter Turchin, we improved a lot of things in the Progressive and New Deal era, then we stagnated in the Great Society era, then we really began to falter with Carter, our first (however tentative) neo-lib president).

2) The return of cynical, dog eat dog, social Darwinist norms means that since the beginning of the neo-lib era, modern elites basically have knowingly pushed a lot of self-serving garbage even though they knew it would anger and hurt a lot of ordinary people. In the Progressive, New Deal, and Great Society era Americans were not so quick to assume that other people (including many elites) were selfish backstabbing assholes. In the mid-late 70’s, though, popular cynicism surged. The tentative experimentation of the 60’s and early 70’s was already beginning to back-fire, but the toothpaste was out of the tube. Pandering to “minorities” and protecting the “liberties” of selfish and greedy people was becoming more common, and would only accelerate in future decades.

Interestingly, the shift towards elitist minoritarinism (against much of the popular will) coincides with things like lots more people going to college, lots more women working, lots more immigrants entering the West, lots more people becoming lawyers, and so on. We’ve been way too guilty of encouraging more competition, rather than stability and modesty. I think that’s the heart of it. “Winning” the status arms race becomes more important than anything else. Even if winning means acting like a dirt bag, being cruel, being dishonest, being smug and pompous, well, so what? Every generation has a certain number of people who buy into this garbage.

That being said, it doesn’t change the fact that money makes a big difference. Silents and many Boomers didn’t exactly have a hard time piling up lots of goodies. So as long as the climate is corrupt, we’re going to see a lot of resistance by Silents and Boomers against policies designed to bring back more equality. That’s because Silents and Boomers believe that they worked so hard to get everything, and think younger generations are full of crap and excuses when they complain that the current system isn’t fair to ordinary people. Any candidate who recognizes this and does something about it will loved by many younger people. It’s not hard to figure out. Older generations will still have some people who say, “well back in my day, kids left their parents right away, paid for their own place, were easily able to find romantic partners and even marriage partners, and, with the right handling of money, they could expect to be pretty comfortable in older age”. The GSS shows that Silents and Boomers are the generations most opposed to equality measures. Even GIs, New Dealers that they always have been, are more supportive of government enforced inequality reduction.

Interestingly, the shift towards elitist minoritarinism (against much of the popular will) coincides with things like lots more people going to college, lots more women working, lots more immigrants entering the West, lots more people becoming lawyers, and so on.

Yes, that’s all quite true. The point about lawyers is a good one. It’s not just too many people going to college (although we do have way too many). It’s too many people going to college to study useless destructive nonsense. Humanities departments are cesspits of stupid wrong-headed dangerously deluded garbage. That was already well under way by the early 60s, the result of reckless foolishness and wanton destructiveness on the part of the elites who were in power at that time.

Modern Anglophone societies have three or four times as many lawyers as they need. They also have too many economists.

There’s also the problem of the explosion in the numbers of people doing pseudoscience degrees like psychology.

We’ve been way too guilty of encouraging more competition, rather than stability and modesty.

Yes. Too much competition for status. And too much emphasis on money as the value of everything. That really got going in the 1950s as well – crass materialism and status-seeking.

Working harder is unlikely without working _for_ something. Working harder at a British university does not give something of value.

For that matter, back in the 1960s, working in corporations didn’t actually produce much of value either. I tried it for a time, but it really was a lot like Dilbert. I even knew a person much like Wally, and there was actually an Alice, although not with the temper. The crucial thing was that, even back then, corporate work on the engineering level quite often meant that you couldn’t have a family.

A few years later (not many), I rented a room from a Raytheon engineer. Boston area. EE type, I think; his past project were mostly radar related. His wife, a nurse, had just left him for a physician, and he was “laied off”. Anyway, no family for him. He waited until Christmas, invited his current friends and girlfriend over, went upstairs and shot himself, I believe with a .32 short barrelled pistol. Anyway, the slug went from the top of his hard pallet to the bottom of his skull, but never made it out. H bled quite a bit. Fortunately for everybody else (not him) he landed on his pistol, and the police immediately saw what had happened. And that was the career of one engineer, c.a. 1970. Not entirely atypical.

Ultimately, if people were living seedier lives by 1970 then TV and movies were going to reflect that, just like how “gangster” movies became popular in the late 20’s and early 30’s because of pervasive organized crime activity of that time.

Why doesn’t that seem to be the case with sports? The last couple of decades have been very non-violent compared to the couple of decades before those, but football as replaced baseball as America’s passtime and UFC has replaced boxing as America’s pay-per-view event.

I’m not sure about the relevance here of Dunbar’s number because we are considering a hypothetical, that is, do you make it harder for people of another race to be a member of your 300.

Speaking of which, what do you think of the idea that we have to get back to the small group dynamic in order to keep Humpty Dumpty on the wall? IOW, our complex societal organization is coming undone and the only way out is to get back to and empower the little platoons.

RE: morality of racism

If morality is an evolved cultural artifact that enables the survival of the group, then whether racism is moral or not is preset when one defines one’s group.

We’ve been way too guilty of encouraging more competition, rather than stability and modesty.

Yes. Too much competition for status. And too much emphasis on money as the value of everything. That really got going in the 1950s as well – crass materialism and status-seeking.

I have now read much of this thread and have appreciated many of the comments. I think a number of the contributors to this thread might be interested in the piece How Right Was Reagan? by Richard Gamble from the American Conservative, 2009. The article touches-upon a number of the topics addressed in this thread or related topics.

Carefully-selected excerpts:

“Reagan portrayed himself as conservative,” Bacevich writes of the campaign underway in 1979. “He was, in fact, the modern prophet of profligacy, the politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption. Beguiling his fellow citizens with his talk of ‘morning in America,’ the faux-conservative Reagan added to America’s civic religion two crucial beliefs: Credit has no limits, and the bills will never come due.” Bacevich charges the “faux-conservative” Reagan with nothing less than undermining America’s moral constitution, its adherence to such timeless “folk wisdom” as “save for a rainy day.”

Historian John Lukacs, writing in Outgrowing Democracy (published in 1984 and later reissued under the title A New Republic), found it necessary to put Reagan’s “conservatism” in quotation marks, calling it “lamentably shortsighted and shallow.”[…]But overall, Reagan preached yet another version of sinless, progressive America that had more in common with Tom Paine and Woodrow Wilson than with Edmund Burke.

In a further criticism, Lukacs traced the “militarization of the image of the presidency” to Reagan. It was Reagan, after all, who began the practice of returning the salutes of the military—a precedent followed by every president since. While doing so may seem to honor the military, it in fact erodes the public’s understanding of the presidency as a civilian office, Lukacs argued.

I could care less who was in charge of TV or the movie studios in the 70’s

If you could care less, then why don’t you?

You may not care, but the expression is usually rendered as I couldn’t care less, at least among educated people who do know what they’re talking about.

As I have said, you’re mixed up about cause and effect. You seem to think that television is an accurate reflection or measure of reality.

It isn’t.

Until you get past that point, your mind will remain a steel trap for propaganda from the boob tube, Hollywood, and ignoramuses babbling toxic nonsense on the Internet.Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Watterson

A common belief among film and TV executives is that everyone who watches media has the intellect of Beavis and Butt-Head.

[…]

Of course, there is a “moron” demographic out there, and it has its members, but executives seem to believe that every person who watches TV belongs in it. This may be due to something known as the “80-20” rule in business—in this case that market-research shows 80% of money spent on television-advertised products comes from the lowest 20% in terms of education and intelligence, so show-content is naturally geared towards them.

Boob tube – U.S. derogatory slang for television from late 1950s
Idiot box – U.S. derogatory slang for television from late 1940s

Usage of both terms skyrocketed beginning in the late ’50s and early ’60s.

source: Google Books Ngram Viewer

[edit] I tried to embed results from Google Books Ngram Viewer, but no dice; the HTML was stripped away.]

There isn’t anything wrong per se with giving homosexuals their rights, and their marriages or whatever. That should be fine. Keep things in the bedroom and all that. The actual issue is them imposing homosexuality on us, forcing it on people, the pride parades, the quotas on TV and all of that.

1.) There is, if nothing else, a strong public health argument in favor of restricting sexual practices such as buggery (anal penetration) and anilingus (anal-oral contact) that are inherently grossly unhygienic and inordinately disease-promoting.

2.)To radically redefine marriage* to include homosexual relationships of any kind is ipso facto, to not only sanction and legitimize such relationships (which would be bad enough) but also to implicitly declare them equal to heterosexual relationships and genuine marriage. (*Throughout the millennia of human history, across all lands and cultures, marriage had always been limited in definition to one male and one or more females.)

3.) Such equivalency is manifestly false and deeply pernicious.

[MORE]

4.) Gay doctrinal orthodoxy asserts that homosexuality is, without exception, innate and immutable; that it must be indulged; and that only through engaging-in the brutal, dangerous act of anal buggery can one, as a homosexual, be considered liberated and fulfilled.

5.) Such messages are most dangerous and harmful to those still in their formative years, i.e., adolescents and young adults, whose sexuality may still be fluid. Surely, one’s experiences and what one is taught during one’s formative years can, in at least many cases, influence the shape that one’s sexuality will ultimately take.

6.) That so many people do not realize or appreciate point #5 above would clearly appear to be a result of how frighteningly effective the homosexual lobby has been in propagandizing people to accept the doctrinal assertions summarized in point #4.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, exactly, but I will say that combat sport popularity is motivated mainly by a society’s level of decadent individualism (“hey, it’s a free country, they knew what they were getting into, and why should I judge some knucklehead who wants a slice of fame or fortune (however fleeting) by exposing his body to extreme trauma?)”. High-profile boxing events were a big deal in the Gilded and Progressive Age of rising concern for status(circa 1880-1930), but were much less common in the New Deal era of diminished individualism (circa 1930-1970). In the decade of transition toward neo-liberalism, the 1970’s, almost immediately we got a very hyped and well-followed boxing event:

“Ali and Frazier’s first fight, held at the Garden on March 8, 1971, was nicknamed the “Fight of the Century”, due to the tremendous excitement surrounding a bout between two undefeated fighters, each with a legitimate claim to be heavyweight champion. Veteran boxing writer John Condon called it “the greatest event I’ve ever worked on in my life.” The bout was broadcast to 35 foreign countries; promoters granted 760 press passes.[48]”

This is right in line with the many other changes of the 1970’s that indicated growing levels of status concern and individualism; more women entering the workforce, delayed family formation, many men suddenly growing mustaches or beards (although doctors and lawyers would be clean-shaven until 1980, at which point you could go to a hospital or a courtroom proceeding and be smacked in the face with copious facial hair worn by “professionals”), and the growing hostility toward the cultural restraint of the New Deal era. Some excesses of the 70’s were corrected, but other have gotten worse since. E.g., MMA by the year 2000 replacing boxing as the premier combat sport.

Football-wise, the first several Super Bowls (e.g. the 1960’s ones) were not necessarily that well-attended, and the price of attending was relatively affordable into the early 80’s. The half-time show, which is now a horrifyingly decadent and over-produced spectacle, was generally low-key in the 1960’s-1992. Micheal Jackson’s half-time show in 1993 is generally considered to be the turning point; this show and the following shows were elaborate, expensive, and loud.

The NFL season was lengthened in the late 70’s, due in large part to rising game attendance and TV ratings. Both the NHL and NFL became much more popular in the 70’s (with the NHL adding several new teams). MLB and the NBA would maintain their popularity in the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s. MLB was eventually done in by the 1994 strike, while the NBA faded in popularity after Jordan retired. Notably, there has been relatively little damage done to the NFL or NHL by anything in the 2000’s and 2010’s, even when we really ought to be re-evaluating these sports. The damage wrought by NHL rough-housing is undeniable; several “enforcers” of the 1980’s-2000’s died at a younger age, while nasty cheap shots only began to be heavily penalized in the late 2000’s. NFL players have been getting bigger and faster since the late 70’s, with obviously dire consequences for over-all health (increased obesity is obviously dangerous, while the increased speed of modern football leads to more severe head injuries). A return to “two-way” players (play both offense and defense) would lead to players who are smaller and more prone to fatigue, which would slow down the game and make it safer. Limiting substitutions would also be a good idea, because modern football often involves subbing in “fresh” defensive players (who often weigh in excess of 250 lbs) delivering heavy blows to the opponent. For marketing reasons, the NFL won’t create and enforce rules that would make players smaller and slower. Money is more important than safety; after all, beginning in the 1980’s big “hits” (aggressive tackles and spears) started to be extensively promoted and marketed; the NFL released several big hit compilation videos in the late 80’s and 90’s, and ESPN et al often gave gleeful coverage to the most thunderous blows delivered by the defense. Play in both the NFL and NHL seemed to get rougher in the 1970’s, but the over-all culture did not really start to celebrate rough play until the mid-80’s, and by 1990 ghetto clowning after plays started to appear as well.

It seems that since the 1970’s, people increasingly watch sports not to enjoy the athletic spectacle, but rather, to watch some poor SOB’s get f**ked up. Also, sports gambling has been mainstreamed increasingly since then. So, many people now watch just for the sake of keeping up with degenerate gambling habits.

Some cuck inc. entity did acknowledge (approvingly, I might add) that Reaganism was a major part of the legacy of the 1960’s. Essentially, the counter-culture thinkers of both the Left and the Right gained momentum in the 60’s and 70’s. By 1980, the New Deal strain of the Left (economic liberalism and cultural centrism or conservatism) was getting hammered by the youngish champions of The New Way of doing liberal business (not protecting unions, cutting taxes on the rich, rolling back trust-busting, and cultural liberalism). Equally important was the increasingly archaic image of old-school conservatism, both the wholesome big government variety (strongly enforced cultural values) and the small government variety (say no to cronyism, the police state, and endless wars). The New Generation of conservatives were comfortable with large deficits, mass surveillance, corporate monopolies and being the world’s cop…..Even though they often claimed otherwise, and blamed “big government liberals” for growth of government size and power (while having nothing intelligent to say about private sector corruption).

Since the 1980’s, establishment “conservatism” has actually been a corrupted and perverted variant of the statist trends that began in the Progressive and New Deal era. In those eras, we actually used big government to make society better and more fair. In the Neo-lib era (post-1980), we no longer use big gov. to stop gambling, porn, divorce, fraud, financial speculation etc., but we do use big gov. to de-stabilize foreign lands, spy on everyone, and incarcerate massive numbers of people while letting wealthy criminals and traitors off the hook. “Freedom” really isn’t free, is it? In terms of responsibly run government, obviously it goes without saying that since the 80’s the government keeps getting bigger yet we refuse to figure out how to actually pay for this responsibly. Here we see, again, that it was the New Dealers who were the wholesome pragmatists, while the Reaganites are the delusional idealists and spendthrifts. The New Dealers built and maintained well transportation, water, and sanitation infrastructure; the New Dealers treated criminals and mentally ill people with appropriate levels of care and/or punishment. The Reaganites specifically invoked infrastructure spending as unnecessary and prone to boondogglism. Then they turn around and build massive numbers of prisons to house people who they can’t figure out how to take care of better, and many of these people are mentally ill, low IQ, or socially inept and they deserve better than to be raped in the ass. New Dealers took the time to reconcile our finances, while Reaganites put off these important discussions, causing problems to get worse as time goes by and the foot-dragging never ends.

Family instability, drug addiction, despair, literal decay and breakd0wn of society…These are all things that we associate with the Reaganite (and post-Reaganite) era, not the New Deal era. A society full of visible con-men and weirdos…That’s the post-1980 era, not the 1930-1970 era. Men going several weeks without shaving….That’s the current era, not the New Deal era.

Essentially, the counter-culture thinkers of both the Left and the Right gained momentum in the 60’s and 70’s.

A very good and very perceptive point.

The liquidation of the both the Old Left and the Old Right was one of the most extraordinary political revolutions in history and mot people don’t even know that it happened.

And it happened throughout the Anglosphere. The election of the Fraser Government in Australia at the end of 1975 signalled the end of the Old Right. People voted for Fraser because they wanted a return to normality and stability but what they got was a prime minister who was in economic terms a a neoliberal extremist and in social terms an extreme radical. The election of the Hawke Government in 1983 marked the death of the Old Left in Australia.

Britons in 1979 voted for Thatcher because they wanted a return to normality and stability but what they got was a prime minister who was in economic terms a a neoliberal extremist and in social terms a nihilist. This was the woman who said that there’s no such thing as society. The election of Thatcher marks the end of the Old Right in Britain. The election of Tony Blair made the death of the Old Left in Britain official.

This political revolution was rapid and spectacular. Whatever caused it it was clearly not a purely American thing. Those inclined to conspiracy theories might want to give this some thought.

There’s a lot of persuasive evidence that the modern “neo-Nazi” movement was heavily fabricated by Israeli/British/American intelligence/political establishment figures. The idea was to stop any return to New Deal values via associating old school social and political norms with the toxic image of the Nazis. The establishment, by the mid-1970’s, was increasingly pushing for economic de-regulation as well as decadent cultural liberalism and multi-culturalism. Since the Nazis used Big Government to enforce conservative culture, well, therefore any modern person who would advocate such a thing is a Nazi. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that all Western countries used government for the same thing in the mid-20th century. So therefore, all Western countries were hopelessly racist/sexist/homophobic etc. at that time. Constantly slandering the New Deal era as bigoted and backward serves the interests of both the modern decadent Left and decadent Right, since both camps overwhelmingly oppose the use of big government to enforce wholesome norms, but are comfortable with big government fulfilling the insane agendas of each side of the modern political establishment(both camps are comfortable with living in Sodom so long as decadent elites are free to pursue various idiotic schemes; the Left wants a woke utopia, the Right wants global scale militarism and corporate cronyism).

Nobody in the mainstream of either side, right now, ever talks about the New Deal era restricting mass murders, gambling, over-eating, dangerous dog ownership, financial fraud schemes, narcissistic individualism, irresponsible spending, and the like. Proof of how sane and stable society was in the mid-20th century is totally forgotten in favor of: “well, back then your parents would frown if you dated or married outside your race”.

Those traitorous Anglo politicians you mention can always gain favor by pointing out that, “hey, at least I have more enlightened views on race, gender, and homosexuality than my parents or grandparents did”. They can also boast about how they encouraged “freedom”* via reduced taxes on higher classes, which helps “spur” greater “growth” and “hard work”.

*Freedom of association and freedom of speech and thought have all taken serious blows since the late 70’s establishment of affirmative action and PC, and the evermore draconian language seen in policies designed to maintain “respect” for diversity. My mother is a realtor and she can’t even mention the racial make-up of a neighborhood to home buyers.

Those traitorous Anglo politicians you mention can always gain favor by pointing out that, “hey, at least I have more enlightened views on race, gender, and homosexuality than my parents or grandparents did”. They can also boast about how they encouraged “freedom”* via reduced taxes on higher classes, which helps “spur” greater “growth” and “hard work”.

Yep. I don’t trust people who talk about freedom, because the sorts of freedoms they seem to believe in seem to me to be either irrelevant or actively harmful. I don’t think freedom to maximise profits at all costs is a good thing. And I’m not sure that freedom to destroy yourself and society by indulging in self-destructive and socially destructive behaviour is a good thing.

It doesn’t seem like something we’re able to escape. Those who do often find misery in trying. Even in the wide world of the internet, where interactions are theoretically limitless, forums like these–the comments section at UR serves as a sort of forum–are what people gravitate here. The familiarity and dare I say intimacy that fosters can’t be replicated at a place like Breitbart where there are a bazillion comments.

I don’t really know how to put it into practice. Politically, I’m a localist. My instincts are always to localize things as much as possible and to have political power devolve back to the lowest feasible level.

That popular media and entertainment don’t necessarily reflect what is really happening on the ground. Ie, as America has become less and less violent, the sports Americans prefer have become more and more violent. If you were a historian writing centuries in the future and only had access to changes in sports popularity, you might conclude America was becoming much more violent from the 1980s to the 2010s even though the opposite has been the case.

I’m way out of my league trying to summarize the history of movies, but the gory violence of things like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the flourishing of Quentin Tarrantino don’t seem to track street violence, either. Am I off on that?

My mother is a realtor and she can’t even mention the racial make-up of a neighborhood to home buyers.

IIUC, “realtor” is a trademarked term. You do not have to be a “realtor” to be a licensed real-estate agent, and there may very well be room for quite a few agents who DO spell out all the un-PC facts regarding things like demographics.

Sports thuggery tracks the rise and fall of decadent individualism, not the rise and fall of street crime. Marty McSorely trying to decapitate NHL players with his stick in the 1990’s was the sort of thing that almost never happened in the 1950’s or 1960’s, when society went to great lengths to encourage modest and professional behavior. Again, there’s also a correlation to facial hair; look at athlete trading cards in the 1960’s, and 60-70% of athletes are clean shaven, while 15-25% have a mustache or longer side-burns. No more than 5% have a goatee or beard. By the Jimmy Carter era, 40-50% of athletes have a mustache, goatee, or beard.

Movie thuggery is more reflective of street crime. Movies about home invasions and serial killings became much more prevalent in the 1970’s and 1980’s, then began to gradually fade away in the late 1990’s (The early 90’s were a particularly fertile ground for crime cinema, with Goodfellas, New Jack City, Silence of the Lambs, and Pulp Fiction all being big hits; not coincidentally, organized American crime from about 1985-1995 was in it’s bloodiest era since the early 1930’s, while serial killers were a growing concern from the late 70’s-early 90’s). Politically oriented violence was a big problem in the 60’s and 70’s, so not surprisingly, movie plots about assassinations, protests, riots, violent activists etc. were a big thing in the 70’s. Then, after Reagan took office, this sort of violence diminished a lot so movies with this sort of thing became a lot less common.

things like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the flourishing of Quentin Tarrantino don’t seem to track street violence, either. Am I off on that?

Actually, the mid-1970’s-early 1990’s saw an explosive growth in murder, rape, child abuse, etc. So that’s why violence and crime became a lot more common in the media of the 70’s-90’s.

The NFL and NHL are much more concerned about safety now than they were 10-15 years ago, which I think is partly due to late X-ers and Millennials having more influence. Whereas Boomer and early X-er officials were content to let athlete’s brains get scrambled.

Yep, most of the top MMA viewed events occurred after 2015. So it does indeed fit the trend of violent sports becoming more hyped as individualism and status striving increase. Football was violent enough in the late 60’s-1980’s. Then we needed a bigger fix, so we turned to boxing in the 1990’s-early 2000’s. Then that wasn’t enough, so it was on to MMA in the late 2000’s.

About 1/2 the matches are from the 90’s and early 2000’s, so it does look like MMA has superseded boxing. It is notable that no event from the 80’s is listed, so it looks like the public’s fascination with sleaze like gambling and combat sports really wasn’t that high in the 70’s and 80’s; you had your underworld that couldn’t get enough of these things, but most normies found it distasteful and weren’t interested. The 1990’s would be the decade where gambling and combat sports went mainstream (I seem to recall Las Vegas running lots of ads in mainstream outlets by the early 90’s).

So, why were people more against drugs, gambling, boxing etc. in the 70’s and 80’s, in spite of high crime levels? Well, back then most crime was caused by a minority of bad apples. But most people were against stuff back then that was perceived to be immoral or irresponsible. What changed in the 1990’s was how many “normies” became lackadaisical toward drugs, sports thuggery, etc. There really was a turn toward nihilism and decadence.